The 60-day deadline runs from dispatch — not from receipt, not from a double notification that wasn't required here
The Council of State declares an annulment action against an award decision inadmissible because it was filed on 3 February 2016 against a decision sent by ordinary mail on 3 December 2015 — three days late.
What happened?
The SCRL Immobilière Publique du Centre et de l'Est du Brabant wallon (IPB) awarded a works contract on 21 September 2015 to ENVISYS for HVAC and plumbing renovation in nine apartment buildings, worth €527,380.95 ex VAT. Établissements JORDAN, with a bid of €668,781, was ranked second. IPB sent the decision on 3 December 2015 by ordinary post; JORDAN filed an annulment action with the Council of State on 3 February 2016. IPB raised inadmissibility ratione temporis: the 60-day deadline started on 4 December 2015 and expired on 1 February 2016. JORDAN replied along four lines: (1) the deadline runs from receipt, not dispatch; (2) no 'double notification' (e-mail and registered mail) had taken place — so the deadline never started; (3) article 4, §2 of the Regent's Decree of 23 August 1948 sets a presumption of receipt three working days after dispatch, so the clock starts on 8 December; (4) article 53bis of the Judicial Code provides a similar presumption. The Council rejects each argument. Point 1: article 8, §1 first paragraph of the Act of 17 June 2013 obliges the contracting authority to communicate 'as soon as it has taken the reasoned award decision' — the provision targets the act of communication, not its receipt. Since only that first paragraph applies here through article 29, §1, the deadline runs from dispatch. Point 2: the double-notification obligation is in article 8, §1 third paragraph — not the first — and does not apply to this contract. Its absence cannot affect the deadline. Point 3: article 4, §2 of the Regent's Decree and article 53bis of the Judicial Code govern deadlines that run from RECEIPT (presumption of receipt on the third working day after dispatch). Here the deadline runs from DISPATCH — those rules are irrelevant. Applying article 3.1 of Regulation 1182/71, the day of the act does not count, so day 1 of the deadline was 4 December 2015 and day 60 was 1 February 2016. The action filed on 3 February 2016 is out of time and inadmissible. JORDAN ordered to pay €700 in legal fees plus €200 in court costs.
Why does this matter?
This judgment routinely catches out bid managers and lawyers. The intuition is strong: 'I count 60 days from the day the letter reached me' — because that is often how civil procedure works. For public procurement that is wrong: the clock starts at the contracting authority's dispatch, not at your receipt, and the form of notification (ordinary, registered, e-mail) doesn't matter unless the law specifically prescribes it for the contract. Above the EU threshold article 8, §1 third paragraph requires double notification (electronic and registered) and the 15-day standstill is differently calibrated. Other contracts — typically below the EU threshold — fall under the first paragraph only, and the annulment deadline runs from dispatch. Misjudge that and you don't lose on the merits — you lose on the clock.
The lesson
Always log two dates in your file: the date on the contracting authority's letter (= dispatch date) AND the date you received it. For the 60-day annulment deadline, dispatch counts. Calculate from D+1 (the day after dispatch) and keep at least a week's margin — a late filing is not redeemed by a strong substantive case.
Ask yourself
Have you received an award decision and want to file with the Council? Note the dispatch date (postmark or date on the letter), add 60 calendar days from the next day, and plan your application at least three working days before the final date — no margin, no chance.
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →